This lens only costs
about $140 brand new. The gray-market version
is the deal of the century for only $110 here.

I've
used this lens and it works just great. It's my first suggestion as the
best inexpensive addition to a standard lens like the 18
- 55 or 18 - 70 mm lenses. I prefer
this G lens to the more expensive 55
- 200 AFS (non-VR) for it's
longer range and lower price. For DX digital cameras, I'd spend the extra and get the VR 55-200mm instead as the most useful inexpensive tele zoom.

The 70-300mm G is very lightweight and has a broad zoom range. At 200mm - 300mm it's
soft at large apertures, which may be great for portraits but bad for
landscapes. If using it for landscapes just put it on a tripod and stop
down to f/11 at 300mm.

Personally I prefer
my 70-210mm f/4 - 5.6 D since it's smaller,
better made, focuses faster and closer, and is much sharper wide open
at 210 mm, but heck, for $150 you can't go wrong. I suspect the $310
ED version is the same as this G lens optically.

If
you want complete sharpness wide open at 200 mm and beyond you have to
spend at least five times as much on a huge 80-200mm f/2.8 or ten times as much on the 80-400mm
VR.

It seems identical
to the $310 AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED with the
exception of being half the price and having a plastic lens mount bayonet
instead of metal. The ED version is also mostly plastic. Even the hoods
and AF gearing are the same.

The only visible
differences between the G and ED are:

1.) ED lens has metal
mount, G has plastic. (also a slight difference in weight)
2.) ED has aperture ring, G does not. The G is easier to use for cameras
made in the past ten years, and the ED can work even on ancient and manual
focus film cameras.

The similarities
are:

1.) Same specs for
number of lens groups and elements
2.) Same size
3.) Same AF speed and gearing
4.) Same close focus distance
5.) Same nice 9-blade diaphragm
6.) Looks like the same optics inside and identical movement of the lens
groups while zooming and focusing

Specifications

Nikon calls this the Nikon AF
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G.

It has thirteen elements
in nine groups.

It takes 62mm filters.

It is 4.6" (117mm)
long by 2.9" (74mm) around and weighs 17 oz (480g).

It focuses as close
as 4.9 feet (1.5m), which is pretty good at 300mm.

It takes the HB-26
hood which seems identical to the HB-15 hood of the 70-300 ED lens.

It is also D compatible.

It has a great nine-bladed
diaphragm.

Nikon Product Number: 1928, in catalog as of spring 2008.

Nikon 70-300mm G HB-26 plastic bayonet hood and USA box.

Performance

Fine at most focal
lengths, soft at 200 to 300 mm wide open.

It ought to be similar
to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF since I suspect
it has the same optics. This G lens has sloppier mechanics and a plastic
mount; the three times as expensive ED version has a metal mount. I suspect
the glass is the same on both but haven't actually shot them head-to head
to confirm.

As tested on a DX digital
camera. Film will be tougher, since the real edges of the image aren't
used with a digital camera's sensor. Film also has lower ISOs will lead
to larger apertures and longer shutter speeds just asking for trouble.

It will be difficult
for many people to get sharp images at the longer focal lengths because
one will need to use smaller apertures, but that leads to longer shutter
speeds and more potential for blur. Blur is also a problem because this
such a lightweight lens. Big fat telephotos help stabilize camera shake
due to their weight alone, and others incorporate additional special active
stabilization. This $140 G lens has none of that, so don't blame softness
on just the lens since it just as likely could be your technique.

70 mm:

f/4: sharp center,
a little soft corners
f/5.6: sharp center, just a tad softer in the farthest corners
f/8: sharp all over
f/11: sharp all over

If you are looking
for a cheap, lightweight zoom for film or FX this is excellent for the price. I can't
see any reason to buy the so-called ED version over this except for the
metal mount and compatibility with my manual focus cameras.

For DX digital cameras, I'd suggest the VR 55-200mm instead because VR is a huge help in getting sharp pictures at long focal lengths.

For $140 US how can
you go wrong? Idiots on eBay keep bidding the prices of these up above
what they could buy them for new from a legitimate dealer! Try one here
and if you hate it send it back. The gray market version here comes
without the 5 year warranty, but for $30 less you might want to chance
it.

On my D70 I can hand-hold
it fine down to about 1/125 at 300 mm, at which point only about
50% of my shots are clear. Light weight works against you here, since
a heavier lens would do a better job of stabilizing the setup. Of
course the 80
- 400 VR lens stabilizes everything, but for over ten times the price
you get less than ten times the stabilization with the 80 - 400 VR.

I doubt the glass
is any different between the ED and G versions. Remember that the ED
version really seems to be made by Tamron and only one small internal
element claims to be ED probably for marketing and promotional reasons,
not any of the important front elements. I don't really consider that
the "ED"
moniker means anything on the ED version.

If
you stop it down a little or don't zoom beyond 200 mm
its images look the same as the $1,000 lenses. Just don't expect it
to last in heavy, daily professional abuse.

It keeps your
money in your pocket where it belongs. You could spend a week in France
for the $1,000 difference and make a zillion eye-popping photos you
wouldn't get with a more expensive lens sitting at home.
It's well worth the $150.

PLUG

If you find this
as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may
have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.